Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Baryogenesis in the paradigm of quintessential inflation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quintessential inflation can generate the observed baryon asymmetry by spontaneous baryogenesis in the post-inflation kinetic regime, with the result independent of the baryon-violating process.

desk verdict A reasonable EFT consistency check that recycles a known baryogenesis mechanism into quintessential inflation, with a useful GW update, but its model-independent framing overreaches and its quoted parameter window violates its own Carroll bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03742 v2 pith:APO3ETTA submitted 2019-08-10 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

Safia Ahmad , Antonio De Felice , Nur Jaman , Sachiko Kuroyanagi , M. Sami This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords quintessentialinflationspontaneousbaryogenesisbaryonasymmetrykineticregimeinstantpreheatingrelicgravitationalwavesSakharovconditionseffectivefieldtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that quintessential inflation—a single scalar field that first drives inflation and later acts as dark energy—can also explain the observed matter–antimatter asymmetry. The mechanism is spontaneous baryogenesis: a derivative coupling of the rolling scalar to a baryon-number-violating current creates an effective chemical potential, so the asymmetry is generated in thermal equilibrium and the out-of-equilibrium Sakharov condition is bypassed. Combining the post-inflation kinetic regime with instant preheating, the paper derives the model-independent freeze-out ratio $\eta_F \approx 1.86\times 10^{-2}\,\lambda'\,\alpha^2\,M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/(M\gamma^2)$ and shows that the observed asymmetry is recovered for a cutoff $M\approx 1.7\times 10^{-2}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ and $\gamma\approx 3\times 10^3$, consistent with the Carroll bound. The same kinetic regime imprints a blue-tilted relic gravitational-wave background at high frequencies, giving the paradigm a testable signature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective interaction $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} = (\lambda'/M)\,\partial_\mu\varphi\,J^\mu$, where $J^\mu$ is a non-conserved baryon current. In the homogeneous background it reduces to $\mu(t)\Delta n$ with the time-dependent chemical potential $\mu(t)=\lambda'\dot{\varphi}/M$, which is what biases baryon over antibaryon occupation in equilibrium. The post-inflation kinetic regime makes $\dot{\varphi}\propto a^{-3}$, so the frozen asymmetry is controlled by $\gamma=a_F/a_{\mathrm{th}}$ and the cutoff; instant preheating sets $T_{\mathrm{th}}$ and $T_r$, bounding $\gamma\lesssim10^4$. The paper also shows that back-reaction of this operator on the field equation is negligible under the Carroll bound.

What would settle it

For a specified baryon-violating operator, compute $T_F$ from the freeze-out condition $\Gamma(T_F)=H(T_F)$ and use Eq. (38) to predict $\eta_F$. Pin down $r$ and the preheating coupling $g$ from CMB and gravitational-wave observations; if the predicted $\eta_F$ cannot match the observed $\eta\simeq6\times10^{-10}$ for $M\in[1.7\times10^{-2}M_{\mathrm{Pl}},M_{\mathrm{Pl}})$ and $\gamma\in[1350,10^4]$, the mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the freeze-out baryon-to-entropy ratio in quintessential inflation is fixed by the scale-factor ratio $\gamma = a_F/a_{\mathrm{th}}$ and the effective cutoff $M$, with the inflationary scale cancelling out of the final expression. During the kinetic regime the scalar velocity scales as $\dot{\varphi}\simeq V_{\mathrm{end}}^{1/2}(a_{\mathrm{end}}/a)^3$, while instant preheating gives radiation density $\rho_r\simeq g^2V_{\mathrm{end}}/(8\pi^3)(a_{\mathrm{end}}/a)^4$; inserting the chemical potential $\mu=\lambda'\dot{\varphi}/M$ into the equilibrium asymmetry and freezing it at $T_F=T_{\mathrm{th}}/\gamma$ yields Eq. (38). Since the baryon-violating process enters only through $T_F$, the estimates are claimed to be independent of that process. With the Carroll bound $\lambda' M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/M \lesssim 8$, reproducing $\eta\simeq 6\times10^{-10}$ selects $\gamma\simeq3\times10^3$ and $M\simeq1.7\times10^{-2}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, and the asymmetry generated near $10^{12}$ GeV survives sphaleron washout down to the electroweak scale.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate rests on the field entering the kinetic regime immediately after inflation, so that $\dot{\varphi}\propto(a_{\mathrm{end}}/a)^3$ through freeze-out, and on instant preheating providing $\rho_r = g^2V_{\mathrm{end}}/(8\pi^3)(a_{\mathrm{end}}/a)^4$ with $H_{\mathrm{inf}}\simeq H_{\mathrm{end}}$; if those fail, the derived parameter window changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed baryon asymmetry can be produced in thermal equilibrium, so the third Sakharov condition is not required in this paradigm.
  • The estimate is independent of which physical process violates baryon number; the process only fixes $T_F$ and hence $\gamma$.
  • Asymmetry generated near $10^{12}$ GeV survives electroweak sphaleron washout when $B-L$ is conserved, leaving $B(T_{\mathrm{EW}})\approx B(T_F)$.
  • The kinetic regime necessarily produces a blue-tilted high-frequency gravitational-wave background, and the BBN bound translates into $g>1.05\times10^{-3}\sqrt{r}$.
  • Planned gravitational-wave observatories are unlikely to detect the kinetic-regime peak, so testing this signature requires higher-frequency detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The claimed model-independence is bounded by the prompt-kination and instant-preheating assumptions; if freeze-out happened after radiation domination, $\eta_F$ would depend on the field potential and the $\gamma\le10^4$ cap would no longer apply.
  • A leptonic version of the same coupling would bias lepton number, so the framework naturally extends to leptogenesis; the late-time coupling of the scalar to neutrino mass would then connect the dark-energy scale to the neutrino mass.
  • If a blue-tilted high-frequency gravitational-wave background is detected, it would fix $g$ and $H_{\mathrm{inf}}$ and turn Eq. (38) into a quantitative check on baryogenesis in the same epoch.
  • The estimated CPT-violating cross section is about $10^{-30}$ of the standard weak cross section at a TeV, so laboratory detection of the operator is effectively out of reach and cosmological consistency is the main test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes spontaneous baryogenesis in quintessential inflation by adding the effective interaction L_eff = (λ'/M) ∂_μφ J^μ, where J^μ is a non-conserved baryon current. Under the assumptions that kination begins promptly after inflation, radiation is produced by instant preheating, H_inf ≈ H_end, and the temperature scales as T ∝ 1/a, the authors derive the freeze-out baryon-to-entropy ratio η_F ≈ 1.86×10^-2 λ' α^2 M_Pl/(M γ^2) (Eq. 38), which is independent of the tensor-to-scalar ratio r and of the specific mechanism of baryon-number violation. They then use the observed asymmetry to constrain the cutoff M and the ratio γ, discuss two concrete baryon-number-violating processes, check sphaleron washout, and compute the relic gravitational-wave spectrum, concluding that the blue-tilted high-frequency spectrum is unlikely to be detected by planned missions.

Significance. If the estimate in Eq. (38) is correct, the paper offers a unified scenario in which the same scalar field responsible for quintessential inflation also generates the observed baryon asymmetry without invoking out-of-equilibrium dynamics. The derivation is explicit, and the cancellation of H_inf in Eq. (38) is a useful feature. The back-reaction check in Eq. (35) and the BBN constraint on the gravitational-wave spectrum in Eq. (79) are valuable additions. However, the paper overstates its model independence, and the quoted numerical parameter window is internally inconsistent, so the current version requires substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.A, after Eq. (38)] The quoted parameter window is internally inconsistent. For λ'=1, α=0.1, and η_F=8.6×10^-11, Eq. (38) gives M_Pl/M = 4.6×10^-7 γ^2. The Carroll bound λ'M_Pl/M < 8 therefore requires γ ≲ 4.2×10^3 and M ≳ 0.125 M_Pl, not γ ≈ 3×10^3 as stated. Conversely, the quoted M ≈ 1.7×10^-2 M_Pl corresponds to λ'M_Pl/M ≈ 59 and γ ≈ 1.1×10^4, violating both the Carroll bound and the stated γ ≲ 10^4. This invalidates the numerical values used in Eq. (39) and the associated cross-section estimate.
  2. [§II (Eqs. 16–17, Fig. 1) and §III.A (Eq. 33)] The 'model independent' claim is not established by the analysis. The prompt onset of kination used in Eq. (33) is verified numerically only for the generalized exponential potential in Fig. 1 (and a few other models), the radiation density in Eq. (17) relies on instant preheating as a specific reheating mechanism, and H_inf ≃ H_end is an approximation whose O(1) error propagates into T_th and T_r. The paper should either demonstrate these properties for the full class of quintessential inflation models or qualify the model-independence statements in the Abstract and Sec. III.A.
  3. [§III.A and §III.B] The restriction T_th ≤ T_F ≤ T_r, used to set γ ≲ 10^4 and to derive M ≈ 1.7×10^-2 M_Pl, is contradicted later in the same section and in Sec. III.C, where T_F < T_r is explicitly allowed. Since Eq. (38) itself only requires T ∝ 1/a and ˙φ ∝ a^-3, the parameter space for γ is not bounded by 10^4 in general; the allowed window for M and γ changes accordingly. The text needs to reconcile these statements and state clearly whether the main result is restricted to freeze-out during kination.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (34)] The back-reaction coefficient should be proportional to λ'^2, not λ', if Eq. (34) follows from the μΔn term with Δn given by Eq. (30); since λ' ≈ 1 the numerical check is unaffected, but the formula should be corrected.
  2. [§III.A, Eq. (35)] The inequality λ'(T_end/M)^2 ≲ (8T_end/M_Pl)^2 assumes M ≳ M_Pl/8 in addition to the Carroll bound; this condition is violated by the quoted M ≈ 1.7×10^-2 M_Pl. Please state the assumptions or use the actual value.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'sphalaron' should be 'sphaleron', 'Caroll' should be 'Carroll', 'Tz' should be 'T_F', and 'elrcto-weak' should be 'electro-weak'.
  4. [§III.A, after Eq. (38)] The minimum value γ = 1350 should be derived explicitly from Eq. (38) with M = M_Pl and the chosen values of λ', α, and η_F, since it is not obvious from the text.
  5. [Introduction and §III.A] The paper should state the conversion between the observed baryon-to-photon ratio η_B ≈ 6.1×10^-10 quoted in the introduction and the baryon-to-entropy ratio η_F ≈ 8.6×10^-11 used in Eq. (38); the two quantities are related by the entropy density per photon.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (38) is an algebraic consequence of the stated instant-preheating/kination inputs, and the observed baryon asymmetry is used openly to fix the free cutoff M and ratio gamma rather than being relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Eq. (32) follows from the equilibrium chemical-potential expression (30) and entropy density (31); combining with the kination scaling (33) and the instant-preheating temperatures (23) and (25) gives Eq. (38). The r and H_end dependences cancel algebraically, so Eq. (38) is not an identity with the observed eta; it is a parameter relation. The observed asymmetry enters only after Eq. (38), when the paper fixes the free EFT cutoff M and gamma: the text says 'making appropriate choice for the cut-off can easily land to the required baryon asymmetry, see Eq. (38)' and then adopts the Carroll bound to estimate gamma ~ 3x10^3. This is an openly acknowledged consistency check rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The prompt-kination assumption (33) is supported by Fig. 1 and by prior numerical work (Refs. [30] and [33]); the overlap of authors in those citations is a normal self-citation and does not by itself make the assumption circular, because the numerical behavior is presented in the paper itself and is externally checkable. The manuscript also contains two internal caveats that reduce the strength of the model-independence claim but do not constitute circularity: footnote 12 admits 'the estimates are specific to model of spontaneous baryogenesis', and the quoted M ~ 1.7e-2 M_Pl obtained from gamma ~ 10^4 appears to violate the Carroll bound lambda' M_Pl/M < 8 used earlier; that is a numerical consistency issue, not a circular-reasoning issue. Overall, the central result is self-contained given the stated kination and instant-preheating assumptions, and the observed asymmetry is used as a constraint, not as an input hidden inside the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard quintessential-inflation background, the instant-preheating radiation estimate, and the EFT operator in Eq. (27). The main added cost is the cutoff M and the ratio gamma, both of which are matched to the observed baryon asymmetry rather than derived from independent data.

free parameters (7)
  • Cutoff scale M = approximately 1.7e-2 M_Pl for gamma approximately 3e3
    The EFT cutoff in Eq. (27) is not fixed by the model; Eq. (38) is matched to the observed baryon asymmetry to determine M under the Carroll bound. This is a fit, not a prediction.
  • gamma = a_F / a_th = approximately 3e3, allowed range 1350 to 1e4
    Ratio of freeze-out to thermalization scale factors; chosen so Eq. (38) reproduces the observed asymmetry given M from the Carroll bound. The upper bound comes from T_F greater than T_r and the lower bound from M below M_Pl.
  • lambda' = approximately 1
    Coupling of the derivative interaction in Eq. (27); set to order one in the estimates and bounded by the Carroll bound lambda' M_Pl / M less than 8.
  • alpha = 0.1
    Annihilation coupling appearing in the thermalization cross section Eq. (20); chosen by hand for the T_th estimate.
  • g = lower bound 1.05e-3 sqrt(r), varied in plots
    Instant preheating coupling; constrained from below by the BBN bound in Eq. (79), otherwise not fixed by the model.
  • M_X = greater than about 1e11 GeV (Eq. 48)
    Mass scale of the integrated-out B-L mediator in Sec. III.B; constrained from below but not fit to the asymmetry.
  • alpha_Y = varied
    Yukawa-type coupling in the decay rate Gamma_D approximately alpha_Y M_X in Sec. III.C; not fixed by data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FLRW metric and Einstein equations for a minimally coupled scalar field.
    Used throughout Sec. II to define rho_phi, p_phi, and Hubble evolution; standard background.
  • domain assumption Kinetic regime begins immediately after inflation with rho_phi proportional to a^-6.
    Used in Eq. (16) and throughout the eta_F derivation; supported by Fig. 1 for a generalized exponential potential but not proven model-independently.
  • domain assumption Instant preheating produces radiation density rho_r = g^2 V_end/(8 pi^3)(a_end/a)^4.
    Eq. (17) assumes the chi-field mechanism of Felder et al. The paper's model-independent claim actually depends on this reheating choice.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium distribution with T proportional to a^-1 is valid before and after thermalization.
    Used to relate scale factors to temperatures in Eqs. (21)-(26) and in Eq. (36); approximate, with g* taken constant around 100.
  • ad hoc to paper H_inf approximately H_end.
    Adopted after Eq. (15) to make the estimates model-independent; the paper notes that for specific potentials H_inf/H_end is about 1.8, so this is an order-one approximation.
  • domain assumption The effective derivative coupling of the field to a baryon current, with cutoff M, is a valid low-energy description and its back-reaction is negligible.
    Eq. (27) is the central EFT input; back-reaction is checked in Eq. (35) only for T below M and lambda' M_Pl / M less than 8.
invented entities (1)
  • Hypothetical spontaneously broken U(1) baryon symmetry
    purpose: Provides the non-conserved baryon current J^mu that couples to the derivative of the scalar field in Eq. (27), enabling spontaneous baryogenesis.
    No particle content or new physics is specified; the only handle is the cutoff M constrained by the Carroll bound and by matching to the observed asymmetry, which is not an independent falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryogenesis in the paradigm of quintessential inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APO3ETTA

@misc{pith2026190803742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryogenesis in the paradigm of quintessential inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APO3ETTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03742}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the possibility of baryogenesis in the framework of quintessential inflation. We focus on the model independent features of the underlying paradigm and demonstrate that the required baryon asymmetry can successfully be generated in this scenario. To this effect, we use the effective field theory framework with desired terms in the Lagrangian necessary to mimic baryon number violation \textit{\`{a} la} spontaneous baryogenesis which can successfully evade Sakharov's requirement allowing us to generate the observed baryon asymmetry in the equilibrium process. Our estimates are independent of the underlying physical process responsible for baryon number violation. The underlying framework of quintessential inflation essentially includes the presence of kinetic regime after inflation which gives rise to blue spectrum of gravitational wave background at high frequencies. In addition to baryogenesis, we discuss the prospects of detection of relic gravitational wave background, in the future proposed missions, sticking to model independent treatment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Figure shows the evolution of field energy density versus red-shift on log scale. It is clear from the plot that kinetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for left panel CPT violating interaction given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Figure (a) shows the allowed region of fermion masses and the instant preheating coupling g. Lower mass fermion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Figure displays the relic gravitational wave spectrum; left panel corresponds to three different values of tensor-to-scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Non-Standard Thermal History and Formation of Primordial Black Holes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity

    gr-qc 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A tuned Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet inflation model can create primordial black holes from asteroid-sized to tens of solar masses and secondary gravitational waves, with abundances that change dramatically in a stiff post-i...

  2. Starobinsky Inflation in k-Essence Framework: Attractor Dynamics, Reheating, and Consistency with ACT DR6

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A power-law non-canonical kinetic coupling F(φ)=1+Aφ^n revives the Starobinsky inflation potential's consistency with ACT DR6 CMB data while preserving attractor dynamics and yielding viable reheating.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981) [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3, 139 (1987)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 1981

  2. [2]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982) [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3, 149 (1987)]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9 1982

  4. [4]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967) [JETP Lett. 5, 24 (1967)] [Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, no. 5, 392 (1991)] [Usp. Fiz. Nauk 161, no. 5, 61 (1991)]. doi:10.1070/PU1991v034n05ABEH002497]

    doi:10.1070/pu1991v034n05abeh002497 1967

  5. [5]

    A. G. Cohen and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 199, 251 (1987)

    1987

  6. [6]

    De Simone and T

    A. De Simone and T. Kobayashi, JCAP 1608, no. 08, 052 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/052 [arXiv:1605.00670 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    A. D. Dolgov, doi:10.1080/01422419808240874, hep-ph/9707419

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Trodden, Rev

    M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1463 (1999) [hep-ph/9803479]

    arXiv 1999

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Takahashi and M

    F. Takahashi and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 69, 083506 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.083506 [hep-ph/0308173]

    2004 arXiv

  2. [10]

    E. V. Arbuzova, A. D. Dolgov and V. A. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D94, no. 12, 123501 (2016) [arXiv:1607.01247 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dasgupta, R

    A. Dasgupta, R. K. Jain and R. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 8, 083527 (2018) [arXiv:1808.04027 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Sahni, M

    V. Sahni, M. Sami and T. Souradeep, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023518 (2001) [gr-qc/0105121]

    2001 arXiv

  5. [14]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Saridakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, no. 05, 1530014 (2015) [arXiv:1410.6100 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [15]

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 59, no. 6, 063505 (1999) [astro-ph/9810509]

    1999 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Spokoiny, Phys

    B. Spokoiny, Phys. Lett. B 315, 40 (1993) [gr-qc/9306008]

    1993 arXiv

  8. [17]

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 60, no. 10, 103506 (1999) [astro-ph/9904396]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Peloso and F

    M. Peloso and F. Rosati, JHEP 12, 026 (1999) [hep-ph/9908271]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [19]

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and J. E. Lidsey, Phys. Rev. D 64, no. 2, 023509 (2001) [astro-ph/0006421]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Dimopoulos, Nucl

    K. Dimopoulos, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 95, 70 (2001) [astro-ph/0012298]

    2001 arXiv

  12. [21]

    A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D 64, no. 8, 083503 (2001) [astro-ph/0105518]

    2001 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Rosenfeld and J

    R. Rosenfeld and J. A. Frieman, JCAP 09, 003 (2005) [astro-ph/0504191]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Sami and V

    M. Sami and V. Sahni, Phys. Rev. D 70, no. 8, 083513 (2004) [hep-th/0402086]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Dimopoulos and J

    K. Dimopoulos and J. W. F. Valle, Astropart. Phys. 18, 287 (2002) [astro-ph/0111417]

    2002 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 67, no. 12, 123512 (2003) [hep-ph/0301264]

    2003 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, no. 21, 214003 (2013) [arXiv:1304.1961 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [27]

    M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 2, 023512 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6661 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Dimopoulos and C

    K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, JCAP 06, 027 (2017) [arXiv:1703.00305 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Akrami, R

    Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and V. Vardanyan, JCAP 06, 041 (2018) [arXiv:1712.09693 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Ahmad, R

    S. Ahmad, R. Myrzakulov and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 6, 063515 (2017) [arXiv:1705.02133 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Jaman and K

    N. Jaman and K. Myrzakulov, arXiv:1807.07443 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  23. [32]

    M. W. Hossain, EPJ Web Conf. 168, 04007 (2018) [arXiv:1801.03272 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [33]

    C. Q. Geng, M. W. Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 2, 023522 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023522 [arXiv:1502.03597 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [34]

    C. Q. Geng, C. C. Lee, M. Sami, E. N. Saridakis and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 1706, no. 06, 011 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2017/06/011 [arXiv:1705.01329 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    M. A. Skugoreva, M. Sami and N. Jaman, arXiv:1901.06036 [gr-qc]

    1901 arXiv

  27. [36]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L. M. Wang and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123504 [astro- ph/9812313]

    1999

  28. [37]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, no. 8, 1582 (1998) [astro-ph/9708069]. 14 In fact, χ can be made to decay fast, almost instantaneously, by demanding, Γ χ >> Hend which in turn puts a restriction on the coupling h. 18

    1998 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Sami, Models of Dark Energy, In: Papantonopoulos L

    M. Sami, Models of Dark Energy, In: Papantonopoulos L. (eds) The Invisible Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Lec- ture Notes in Physics, Vol. 720, pp. 219-256 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007)(https://www.ctp-jamia.res.in/people/ models_of_dark_energy.pdf); P. Singh, M...

    2007 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Chiba, Phys

    T. Chiba, Phys. Rev. D 81, no. 2, 023515 (2010) [arXiv:0909.4365 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [40]

    L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 35, 2955 (1987)

    1987

  32. [41]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Nasri and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 67, 043509 (2003) [hep-ph/0207211]

    2003 arXiv

  33. [42]

    S. M. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3067 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3067 [astro-ph/9806099]

    1998 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Trodden, Pramana 62, 451 (2004) doi:10.1007/BF02705101 [hep-ph/0302151]

    M. Trodden, Pramana 62, 451 (2004) doi:10.1007/BF02705101 [hep-ph/0302151]

    2004 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Sami and N

    M. Sami and N. Dadhich, TSPU Bulletin 44N7, 25 (2004) [hep-th/0405016]

    2004 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Tsujikawa and A

    S. Tsujikawa and A. R. Liddle, JCAP 0403, 001 (2004) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2004/03/001 [astro-ph/0312162]

    2004 arXiv

  37. [46]

    E. F. Bunn, A. R. Liddle and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D 54, no. 10, R5917 (1996) [astro-ph/9607038]

    1996 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566

    1979 doi

  39. [48]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li and R. Ruiz, Front. in Phys. 6, 40 (2018) doi:10.3389/fphy.2018.00040 [arXiv:1711.02180 [hep-ph]]

    2018

  40. [49]

    E. Ma, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 1777 (2006) doi:10.1142/S0217732306021141 [hep-ph/0605180]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [50]

    G. N. Felder, L. Kofman and A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123523 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123523 [hep- ph/9812289]

    1999

  42. [51]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990)

    1990

  43. [52]

    K. A. Olive, [hep-ph/9404352]

    arXiv

  44. [53]

    Riotto, hep-ph/9807454

    A. Riotto, hep-ph/9807454

    arXiv

  45. [54]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 174, 45 (1986). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91126-3

    1986 doi

  46. [55]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 58, 083504 (1998) [hep-ph/9806329]

    1998 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D 60, 123511 (1999) [astro-ph/9903004]

    1999 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Giovannini, Class

    M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 2905 (1999) [hep-ph/9903263]

    1999 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Riazuelo and J

    A. Riazuelo and J. P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D 62, 083506 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.083506 [astro-ph/0004156]

    2000 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Tashiro, T

    H. Tashiro, T. Chiba and M. Sasaki, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1761 (2004) [gr-qc/0307068]

    2004 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Giovannini, Class

    M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 045004 (2009) [arXiv:0807.4317 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Artymowski, O

    M. Artymowski, O. Czerwinska, Z. Lalak and M. Lewicki, JCAP 1804, no. 04, 046 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2018/04/046 [arXiv:1711.08473 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [62]

    D. G. Figueroa and E. H. Tanin, arXiv:1811.04093 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  54. [63]

    Baumann, Physics of the Large and the Small, pp

    D. Baumann, Physics of the Large and the Small, pp. 523-686 (2011), arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 79, 103501 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103501 [arXiv:0804.3249 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  57. [66]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T. H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015004 (2016) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 [arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Kuroyanagi, S

    S. Kuroyanagi, S. Tsujikawa, T. Chiba and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063513 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.063513 [arXiv:1406.1369 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Janssen et al., PoS AASKA 14, 037 (2015) doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 [arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]]

    G. Janssen et al., PoS AASKA 14, 037 (2015) doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 [arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Audley et al

    H. Audley et al. [LISA Collaboration], arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  61. [70]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations], arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc]

    1903 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. [VIRGO Collaboration], Class. Quant. Grav. 32, no. 2, 024001 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/32/2/024001 [arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. [KAGRA Collaboration], Nat. Astron. 3, no. 1, 35 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y [arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]]

    2019

  64. [73]

    Kawamura et al., Class

    S. Kawamura et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    2011 doi

  65. [74]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama and J. Yokoyama, PTEP 2015, no. 1, 013E02 (2015) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptu176 [arXiv:1410.6618 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Nishizawa et al

    A. Nishizawa et al. , Phys. Rev. D 77, 022002 (2008) [arXiv:0710.1944 [gr-qc]]. A. Nishizawa et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 225011 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4149 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  67. [76]

    A. M. Cruise and R. M. J. Ingley, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 6185 (2006). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/007

    2006 doi

  68. [77]

    A. M. Cruise, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 095003 (2012). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/9/095003

    2012 doi

  69. [78]

    Arvanitaki and A

    A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 7, 071105 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.071105 [arXiv:1207.5320 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Sabin, D

    C. Sabin, D. E. Bruschi, M. Ahmadi and I. Fuentes, New J. Phys. 16, 085003 (2014) doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/8/085003 [arXiv:1402.7009 [quant-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Goryachev and M

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 10, 102005 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.102005 [arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [81]

    A. S. Chou et al. [Holometer Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 6, 063002 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063002 [arXiv:1611.05560 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [82]

    M. P. G. Robbins, N. Afshordi and R. B. Mann, arXiv:1811.04468 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  74. [83]

    A. Ito, T. Ikeda, K. Miuchi and J. Soda, arXiv:1903.04843 [gr-qc]

    1903 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Dimopoulos, L

    K. Dimopoulos, L. Donaldson-Wood, arXiv:1906.09648

    1906 arXiv

  76. [85]

    P. D. Bari, arXiv:1206.3168

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.